Every piece of matter in the universefunctions and moves in predictable ways. We're still learning these ways and patterns, but it seems clear that even seemingly "random" events only appear that way because we can't explain their mechanism... yet.
Based on these universal constants, it theoretically would have been possible to predict the location of every atom in the universe today, just after the Big Bang. All of the reactions and interactions since then could have been easily determined and predicted-- in theory-- knowing the constants that drive them.
Figure 1. Big-Bang creates universe as we know it.
So the location of every atom today, could have been determined just after the Big Bang. Isn't that FATE? Since the location and movements of every piece of matter in the universe today could have been predicted moments after the Big Bang, based on the CONSTANTS of the universe, isn't that FATE?
Figure 2. This matter, based on universal constants, becomes people and thought.
The theory breaks down when you ask questions about consciousness. Like, is thought PURELY based on physical reactions, or is it something more...
Can it be something more? Is that possible? Can some sort of running narrative and cohesive cognitive interpretation of our perceptual inputs emerge from a mere firing of neurons? Or is it just that we feel like we have conscious thought as an evolved defense mechanism to deal with the world around us? That is to say, I FEEL like I'm having these thoughts because that's the mechanism-- I'm supposed to FEEL like I'm thinking, but I'm really just having a genetic cognitive response to the perceptual stimuli at a given moment...
How can science explain that thought is immaterial and that consciousness isn't based purely on physical, tangible properties?
It's like trying to use physics on ghosts. We'll never be able to prove their existencewith science as we know it--
And being the skeptical scientist that I am... Am I just stuck with my head in the clouds, wasting my time? There are legitimate, and more easily-answered questions to tackle-- maybe we should finish those first.
Ps. This is the third post like this that I've deleted and re-done, based on HOLES in my argument that had to be explained. By all means, let me know if you can think of some. For example:
Maybe thought and consciousness are something more that has evolved THROUGH the constraints of the universe.
Maybe the mind fires the neurons and the not the other way around. That is, it's a one-way street. As opposed to epiphenomenalism, which is the other way around.
The main question-- can the MINDbe reduced to standard physical properties. Or are the Mind and the Braintwo fundamentally different entities (Cartesian Dualism).
